Watson's Magazine, Vol. IV, No. 1, March, 1906Various
General
Watson's Magazine, Vol. IV, No. 1, March, 1906
Various
United States -- Politics and government -- Periodicals
Since the time when “popular sovereignty” was a party shibboleth in the
free or slave-State controversy, so many matters are frequently, if
not habitually, submitted to a vote that such course no longer excites
comment. The charter of Greater New York was adopted upon a referendum,
which method has become the rule rather than the exception in giving
charters effect. Within the charters themselves, the Initiative and
Referendum appears with increasing frequency.
Many of the earlier acts referring matters to the people were assailed
as unconstitutional on the ground of delegating legislative power to
the people. The diverse decisions on the subject cannot be reconciled.
Beginning with Delaware in 1847 and continuing to as late date as 1902
(in Ohio), various courts have pronounced such laws invalid. On the
other hand, the Supreme Court of Louisiana decided flatly in 1853 and
again in 1854 that conditional legislation, to take effect upon popular
approval, is not unconstitutional. Then began some subtle and attenuated
“distinguishing” among decisions. Many courts came round to the position
that “while the Legislature cannot delegate its power to enact laws,
it may provide that whether or not a law enacted shall be operative,
may be made to depend upon the popular will.” An interesting fact is
that the courts in the Southern States invariably upheld reference to
the people, and that adverse decisions are very numerous in the North.
A peculiar referendum was attempted in Massachusetts, but was declared
unconstitutional. The act provided for submitting the question of
extending municipal suffrage to women, but by a special section allowed
the women to vote on the proposition of their own enfranchisement. Where
there are constitutional clauses requiring some matters to be referred to
the people, the rule of _expressio unius est exclusio alterius_ has been
invoked in opposing the submission of other laws to the people, but in
vain. The failure of the proper officers to provide for taking a vote at
the first election after the passage of a referendum law, cannot defeat
the will of the people, or deprive them of the option of acceptance or
rejection. Until accepted by popular vote, the law takes effect only
for the purpose of submission, and at a later election mandamus will
lie to require the officials to hold the election properly. In 1900 a
movement began in Australia to make it obligatory to refer the matter to
the people in case of a deadlock between the two houses on any bill or
resolution.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account